THE LAND AND THE PEOPLE.
I.
The Babylonians and Assyrians with whom we are concerned in this volume
dwelt in the region embraced by the Euphrates and the Tigris,--the
Babylonians in the south, or the Euphrates Valley, the Assyrians to the
northeast, in the region extending from the Tigris into the Kurdish
Mountain districts; while the northwestern part of Mesopotamia--the
northern half of the Euphrates district--was the seat of various empires
that were alternately the rivals and the subjects of either Babylonia or
Assyria.
The entire length of Babylonia was about 300 miles; the greatest breadth
about 125 miles. The entire surface area was some 23,000 square miles,
or about the size of West Virginia. The area of Assyria, with a length
of 350 miles and a breadth varying from 170 to 300 miles, covered 75,000
square miles, which would make it somewhat smaller than the state of
Nebraska. In the strict sense, the term Mesopotamia should be limited to
the territory lying between the Euphrates and the Tigris above their
junction, in the neighborhood of Baghdad, and extending northwards to
the confines of the Taurus range; while the district to the south of
Baghdad, and reaching to the Persian Gulf, may more properly be spoken
of as the Euphrates Valley; and a third division is represented by the
territory to the east of the Tigris, from Baghdad, and up to the Kurdish
Mountains; but while this distinction is one that may be justly
maintained, in view of the different character that the southern valley
presents from the northern plain, it has become so customary, in popular
parlance, to think of the entire territory along and between the
Euphrates and Tigris as one country, that the term Mesopotamia in this
broad sense may be retained, with the division suggested by George
Rawlinson, into Upper and Lower Mesopotamia. The two streams, as they
form the salient traits of the region, are the factors that condition
the character of the inhabitants and the culture that once flourished
there. The Euphrates, or, to give the more correct pronunciation, Purat,
signifies the 'river' _par excellence_. It is a quiet stream, flowing
along in majestic dignity almost from its two sources, in the Armenian
mountains, not far from the town of Erzerum, until it is joined by the
Tigris in the extreme south. As the Shatt-el Arab, _i.e._, Arabic River,
the two reach the Persian Gulf. Receiving many tributaries as long as it
remains in the mountains, it flows first in a westerly direction, as
though making direct for the Mediterranean Sea, then, veering suddenly
to the southeast, it receives but few tributaries after it once passes
through the Taurus range into the plain,--on the right side, only the
Sadschur, on the left the Balichus and the Khabur. From this point on
for the remaining distance of 800 miles, so far from receiving fresh
accessions, it loses in quantity through the marsh beds that form on
both sides. When it reaches the alluvial soil of Babylonia proper, its
current and also its depth are considerably diminished through the
numerous canals that form an outlet for its waters. Of its entire
length, 1780 miles, it is navigable only for a small distance, cataracts
forming a hindrance in its northern course and sandbanks in the south.
In consequence, it never became at any time an important avenue for
commerce, and besides rafts, which could be floated down to a certain
distance, the only means of communication ever used were wicker baskets
coated within and without with bitumen, or some form of a primitive
ferry for passing from one shore to another.
An entirely different stream is the Tigris--a corrupted form of
'Idiklat.' It is only 1146 miles in length, and is marked, as the native
name indicates, by the 'swiftness' of its flow. Starting, like the
Euphrates, in the rugged regions of Armenia, it continues its course
through mountain clefts for a longer period, and joined at frequent
intervals by tributaries, both before it merges into the plain and after
doing so, the volume of its waters is steadily increased. Even when it
approaches the alluvial soil of the south, it does not lose its
character until well advanced in its course to the gulf. Advancing
towards the Euphrates and again receding from it, it at last joins the
latter at Korna, and together they pour their waters through the Persian
Gulf into the great ocean. It is navigable from Diabekr in the north,
for its entire length. Large rafts may be floated down from Mosul to
Baghdad and Basra, and even small steamers have ascended as far north as
Nimrud. The Tigris, then, in contrast to the Euphrates, is the avenue of
commerce for Mesopotamia, forming the connecting bond between it and the
rest of the ancient world,--Egypt, India, and the lands of the
Mediterranean. Owing, however, to the imperfect character of the means
of transportation in ancient and, for that matter, in modern times, the
voyage up the stream was impracticable. The rafts, resting on inflated
bags of goat or sheep skin, can make no headway against the rapid
stream, and so, upon reaching Baghdad or Basra, they are broken up, and
the bags sent back by the shore route to the north.
The contrast presented by the two rivers is paralleled by the traits
distinguishing Upper from Lower Mesopotamia. Shut off to the north and
northeast by the Armenian range, to the northwest by the Taurus, Upper
Mesopotamia retains, for a considerable extent, and especially on the
eastern side, a rugged aspect. The Kurdish mountains run close to the
Tigris' bed for some distance below Mosul, while between the Tigris and
the Euphrates proper, small ranges and promontories stretch as far as
the end of the Taurus chain, well on towards Mosul.
Below Mosul, the region begins to change its character. The mountains
cease, the plain begins, the soil becomes alluvial and through the
regular overflow of the two rivers in the rainy season, develops an
astounding fertility. This overflow begins, in the case of the Tigris,
early in March, reaches its height in May, and ceases about the middle
of June. The overflow of the Euphrates extends from the middle of March
till the beginning of June, but September is reached before the river
resumes its natural state. Not only does the overflow of the Euphrates
thus extend over a longer period, but it oversteps its banks with
greater violence than does the Tigris, so that as far north as the
juncture with the Khabur, and still more so in the south, the country to
both sides is flooded, until it assumes the appearance of a great sea.
Through the violence of these overflows, changes constantly occur in the
course that the river takes, so that places which in ancient times stood
on its banks are to-day removed from the main river-bed. Another
important change in Southern Babylonia is the constant accretion of
soil, due to the deposits from the Persian Gulf.
This increase proceeding on an average of about one mile in fifty years
has brought it about that the two rivers to-day, instead of passing
separately into the Gulf, unite at Korna--some distance still from the
entrance. The contrast of seasons is greater, as may be imagined, in
Upper Mesopotamia than in the south. The winters are cold, with
snowfalls that may last for several months, but with the beginning of
the dry season, in May, a tropical heat sets in which lasts until the
beginning of November, when the rain begins. Assyria proper, that is,
the eastern side of Mesopotamia, is more affected by the mountain ranges
than the west. In the Euphrates Valley, the heat during the dry season,
from about May till November, when for weeks, and even months, no cloud
is to be seen, beggars description; but strange enough, the Arabs who
dwell there at present, while enduring the heat without much discomfort,
are severely affected by a winter temperature that for Europeans and
Americans is exhilarating in its influence.
From what has been said, it will be clear that the Euphrates is, _par
excellence_, the river of Southern Mesopotamia or Babylonia, while the
Tigris may be regarded as the river of Assyria. It was the Euphrates
that made possible the high degree of culture, that was reached in the
south. Through the very intense heat of the dry season, the soil
developed a fertility that reduced human labor to a minimum. The return
for sowing of all kinds of grain, notably wheat, corn, barley, is
calculated, on an average, to be fifty to a hundred-fold, while the date
palm flourishes with scarcely any cultivation at all. Sustenance being
thus provided for with little effort, it needed only a certain care in
protecting oneself from damage through the too abundant overflow, to
enable the population to find that ease of existence, which is an
indispensable condition of culture. This was accomplished by the
erection of dikes, and by directing the waters through channels into the
fields.
Assyria, more rugged in character, did not enjoy the same advantages.
Its culture, therefore, not only arose at a later period than that of
Babylonia, but was a direct importation from the south. It was due to
the natural extension of the civilization that continued for the greater
part of the existence of the two empires to be central in the south. But
when once Assyria was included in the circle of Babylonian culture, the
greater effort required in forcing the natural resources of the soil,
produced a greater variety in the return. Besides corn, wheat and rice,
the olive, banana and fig tree, mulberry and vine were cultivated, while
the vicinity of the mountain ranges furnished an abundance of building
material--wood and limestone--that was lacking in the south. The
fertility of Assyria proper, again, not being dependent on the overflow
of the Tigris, proved to be of greater endurance. With the neglect of
the irrigation system, Babylonia became a mere waste, and the same river
that was the cause of its prosperity became the foe that, more
effectually than any human power, contributed to the ruin and the
general desolation that marks the greater part of the Euphrates Valley
at the present time. Assyria continued to play a part in history long
after its ancient glory had departed, and to this day enjoys a far
greater activity, and is of considerable more significance than the
south.
II.
In so far as natural surroundings affect the character of two peoples
belonging to the same race, the Assyrians present that contrast to the
Babylonians which one may expect from the differences, just set forth,
between the two districts. The former were rugged, more warlike, and
when they acquired power, used it in the perfection of their military
strength; the latter, while not lacking in the ambition to extend their
dominion, yet, on the whole, presented a more peaceful aspect that led
to the cultivation of commerce and industrial arts. Both, however, have
very many more traits in common than they have marks of distinction.
They both belong not only to the Semitic race, but to the same branch of
the race. Presenting the same physical features, the languages spoken by
them are identical, barring differences that do not always rise to the
degree of dialectical variations, and affect chiefly the pronunciation
of certain consonants. At what time the Babylonians and Assyrians
settled in the district in which we find them, whence they came, and
whether the Euphrates Valley or the northern Tigris district was the
first to be settled, are questions that cannot, in the present state of
knowledge, be answered. As to the time of their settlement, the high
degree of culture that the Euphrates Valley shows at the earliest period
known to us,--about 4000 B.C.,--and the indigenous character of this
culture, points to very old settlement, and makes it easier to err on
the side of not going back far enough, than on the side of going too
far. Again, while, as has been several times intimated, the culture in
the south is older than that of the north, it does not necessarily
follow that the settlement of Babylonia antedates that of Assyria. The
answer to this question would depend upon the answer to the question as
to the original home of the Semites.[16] The probabilities, however, are
in favor of assuming a movement of population, as of culture, from the
south to the north. At all events, the history of Babylonia and Assyria
begins with the former, and as a consequence we are justified also in
beginning with that phase of the religion for which we have the earliest
records--the Babylonian.
III.
At the very outset of a brief survey of the history of the Babylonians,
a problem confronts us of primary importance. Are there any traces of
other settlers besides the Semitic Babylonians in the earliest period of
the history of the Euphrates Valley? Those who cling to the theory of a
non-Semitic origin of the cuneiform syllabary will, of course, be ready
to answer in the affirmative. Sumerians and Akkadians are the names
given to these non-Semitic settlers who preceded the Babylonians in the
control of the Euphrates Valley. The names are derived from the terms
Sumer and Akkad, which are frequently found in Babylonian and Assyrian
inscriptions, in connection with the titles of the kings. Unfortunately,
scholars are not a unit in the exact location of the districts comprised
by these names, some declaring Sumer to be in the north and Akkad in the
south; others favoring the reverse position. The balance of proof rests
in favor of the former supposition; but however that may be, Sumer and
Akkad represent, from a certain period on, a general designation to
include the whole of Babylonia. Professor Hommel goes so far as to
declare that in the types found on statues and monuments of the oldest
period of Babylonian history--the monuments coming from the mound
Telloh--we have actual representations of these Sumerians, who are thus
made out to be a smooth-faced race with rather prominent cheek-bones,
round faces, and shaven heads.[17] He pronounces in favor of the
highlands lying to the east of Babylonia, as the home of the Sumerians,
whence they made their way into the Euphrates Valley. Unfortunately, the
noses on these old statues are mutilated, and with such an important
feature missing, anthropologists, at least, are unwilling to pronounce
definitely as to the type represented. Again, together with these
supposed non-Semitic types, other figures have been found which, as
Professor Hommel also admits, show the ordinary Semitic features. It
would seem, therefore, that even accepting the hypothesis of a
non-Semitic type existing in Babylonia at this time, the Semitic
settlers are just as old as the supposed Sumerians; and since it is
admitted that the language found on these statues and figures contains
Semitic constructions and Semitic words, it is, to say the least,
hazardous to give the Sumerians the preference over the Semites so far
as the period of settlement and origin of the Euphratean culture is
concerned. As a matter of fact, we are not warranted in going beyond the
statement that all evidence points in favor of a population of mixed
races in the Euphrates Valley from the earliest period known to us. No
positive proof is forthcoming that Sumer and Akkad were ever employed or
understood in any other sense than as geographical terms.
This one safe conclusion, however, that the Semitic settlers of
Babylonia were not the sole occupants, but by their side dwelt another
race, or possibly a variety of races, possessing entirely different
traits, is one of considerable importance. At various times the
non-Semitic hordes of Elam and the mountain districts to the east of
Babylonia swept over the valley, and succeeded, for a longer or shorter
period, in securing a firm foothold. The ease with which these
conquerors accommodated themselves to their surroundings, continuing the
form of government which they found there, making but slight changes in
the religious practices, can best be accounted for on the supposition
that the mixture of different races in the valley had brought about an
interchange and interlacing of traits which resulted in the approach of
one type to the other. Again, it has recently been made probable that as
early at least as 2000, or even 2500 B.C., Semitic invaders entering
Babylonia from the side of Arabia drove the native Babylonian rulers
from the throne;[18] and at a still earlier period intercourse between
Babylonia and distant nations to the northeast and northwest was
established, which left its traces on the political and social
conditions. At every point we come across evidence of this composite
character of Babylonian culture, and the question as to the origin of
the latter may, after all, resolve itself into the proposition that the
contact of different races gave the intellectual impetus which is the
first condition of a forward movement in civilization; and while it is
possible that, at one stage, the greater share in the movement falls to
the non-Semitic contingent, the Semites soon obtained the intellectual
ascendency, and so absorbed the non-Semitic elements as to give to the
culture resulting from the combination, the homogeneous character it
presents on the surface.
IV.
Our present knowledge of Babylonian history reaches back to the period
of about 4000 B.C. At that time we find the Euphrates Valley divided
into a series of states or principalities, parcelling North and South
Babylonia between them. These states group themselves around certain
cities. In fact, the Babylonian principalities arise from the extension
of the city's jurisdiction, just as the later Babylonian empire is
naught but the enlargement, on a greater scale, of the city of Babylon.
Of these old Babylonian cities the most noteworthy, in the south, are
Eridu, Lagash,[19] Ur, Larsa, Uruk, Isin; and in the north, Agade,
Sippar, Nippur, Kutha, and Babylon. The rulers of these cities call
themselves either 'king' (literally 'great man') or 'governor,'
according as the position is a purely independent one, or one of
subjection to a more powerful chieftain. Thus the earliest rulers of the
district of Lagash, of whom we have inscriptions (_c._ 3200 B.C.) have
the title of 'king,' but a few centuries later Lagash lost its
independent position and its rulers became 'patesis,' _i.e._, governors.
They are in a position of vassalage, as it would appear, to the
contemporaneous kings of Ur, though this does not hinder them from
engaging in military expeditions against Elam, and in extensive building
operations. The kings of Ur, in addition to their title as kings of Ur,
are styled kings of Sumer and Akkad. Whether at this time, Sumer and
Akkad included the whole of Babylonia, or, as seems more likely, only
the southern part, in either case, Lagash would fall under the
jurisdiction of these kings, if their title is to be regarded as more
than an empty boast. Again, the rulers of Uruk are known simply as kings
of that place, while those of Isin incorporate in their titles, kingship
over Ur as well as Sumer and Akkad.
For this early period, extending from about 4000 B.C. to 2300,
the chronology is as yet uncertain. Beyond the titles of the rulers
over Babylonian states, there are but few safe indications for
determining the succession of dynasties. So much, however, is now
certain,--that simultaneous with the governors of Lagash and the
older kings of Ur, there was an independent state in Northern Babylonia
with its seat at Agade. Indeed the history of this state can now be
traced back six centuries beyond that of Lagash. Two rulers of Agade,
Naram-Sin (_c._ 3800 B.C.) and Sargon (or to give his fuller name,
Shargani-shar-ali[20]), are the earliest rulers as yet known. These
kings of Agade extended their jurisdiction as far north, at least, as
Nippur on the one side and Sippar on the other. The city of Babylon
itself, if it existed at this period, was therefore included within the
territory of these kings; and it follows that if there existed rulers of
Babylon at this time, which is doubtful (since the city is not
mentioned), they were in the same position of dependency upon the rulers
of Agade as the 'governors' of Lagash were upon some greater power. It
is not until about the middle of the third millennium before this era,
that Babylon comes into prominence.
In the south, as already intimated, the rulers of Lagash and the dynasty
of Ur are the earliest of which we have any record. There is every
reason to believe that further excavations at Mugheir will bring to
light the names of older kings, and the presumption is in favor of
regarding the southern states, or at least some of them, earlier than
any in the north. The climax in the power of the kings of Ur, the period
when they exerted, in fact as well as in name, the sovereignty over all
Sumer and Akkad may be fixed approximately at 3000 B.C. How far we shall
be able to go beyond that, for the beginnings of this state, must, for
the present, remain doubtful, with the chances in favor of a
considerably earlier date; and it may be that prior to Ur and Lagash
there were dynasties established elsewhere,--at Eridu, perhaps,--the
existence of which will be revealed by future discoveries. An
independent state with its seat at Uruk follows upon the culminating
period of the glory of Ur, and may be regarded, indeed, as an indication
that the rulers of Ur had lost their control over the whole of Southern
Babylonia. Isin, whose site has not yet been determined, but which lay
probably to the north of Uruk, was another political center. Its rulers,
so far as we know them, curiously assign the fourth place to the title
'king of Isin,' giving precedence to their control over Nippur, Eridu,
and Uruk. We may conclude from this, that at the time when Isin extended
its supremacy, the greater luster attaching to the old towns of Nippur
and Uruk, was emphasized by the precedence given to these centers over
Isin, although the Isin kings are only 'shepherds' and 'merciful lords'
over Nippur and Uruk, and not kings.
At a subsequent period, the kings of Ur appear to have regained the
supremacy, which was wrested from them by Isin; and the rulers of the
latter acknowledge their dependence upon the kings of Ur. This so-called
second dynasty of Ur includes Nippur. The kings are proud of calling
themselves the guardians of the temple of Bel in Nippur, nominated to
the office by the god himself, and reviving an old title of the kings of
Agade, style themselves also 'king of the four regions.' Another change
in the political horoscope is reflected in the subjection of Ur to a
district whose center was Larsa, not far from Ur, and represented by the
mound Senkereh. There are two kings, Nur-Ramman (_i.e._, light of
Ramman) and Sin-iddina (_i.e._, Sin judges), who call themselves
guardians of Ur and kings of Larsa, showing that the center of this
principality was Larsa, with Ur as a dependent district. That these
rulers take up the dominion once held by the kings of Ur is further
manifest in the additional title that they give to themselves, as 'kings
of Sumer and Akkad,' whereas the omission of the title 'king of the four
regions' indicates apparently the exclusion of Agade and Nippur; and
with these, probably North Babylonia in general, from their supremacy.
The power of Larsa receives a fatal check through the invasion of
Babylonia by the Elamites (_c._ 2350 B.C.).
These variations in official titles are a reflection of the natural
rivalry existing between the various Babylonian states, which led to
frequent shiftings in the political situation. Beyond this, the
inscriptions of these old Babylonian rulers, being ordinarily
commemorative of the dedication to a deity, of some temple or other
construction--notably canals--or of some votive offering, a cone or
tablet, unfortunately tell us little of the events of the time. Pending
the discovery of more complete annals, we must content ourselves with
the general indications of the civilization that prevailed, and of the
relations in which the principalities stood to one another, and with
more or less doubtful reconstructions of the sequence in the dynasties.
In all of this period, however, the division between North and South
Babylonia was kept tolerably distinct, even though occasionally, and for
a certain period, a North Babylonian city, like that of Agade and
Nippur, extended its jurisdiction over a section bordering on the south
and _vice versa_. It remained for a great conqueror, Hammurabi, the
sixth king of a dynasty having its seat in the city of Babylon itself,
who about the year 2300 B.C. succeeded in uniting North and South
Babylonia under one rule. With him, therefore, a new epoch in the
history of the Euphrates Valley begins. Henceforth the supremacy of the
city of Babylon remains undisputed, and the other ancient centers,
losing their political importance, retain their significance only by
virtue of the sanctuaries existing there, to which pilgrimages continued
to be made, and through the commercial activity that, upon the union of
the various Babylonian districts, set in with increased vigor.
Attention was directed a few years ago by Pognon and Sayce to the fact
that the name of Hammurabi, as well as the names of four kings that
preceded him, and of a number that followed, are not Babylonian. Sayce
expressed the opinion that they were Arabic, and Professor Hommel has
recently reenforced the position of Sayce by showing the close
resemblance existing between these names and those found on the
monuments of Southern Arabia.[21] While no evidence has as yet been
found to warrant us in carrying back the existence of the Minean empire
in Southern Arabia beyond 1500 B.C., still since at this period, this
empire appears in a high state of culture, with commercial intercourse
established between it and Egypt, as well as Palestine, the conclusion
drawn by Hommel that Babylonia was invaded about 2500 B.C. by an
Arabic-speaking people is to be seriously considered. Elam, as we have
seen, was constantly threatening Babylonia from the East, and shortly
before Hammurabi's appearance, succeeded in putting an end to the
dynasty of Larsa. It now appears that the inhabitants of the Euphrates
Valley were also threatened by an enemy lodged somewhere in the
southwest. Though Hommel's hypothesis still needs confirmation, and may
perhaps be somewhat modified by future researches, still so much seems
certain: that the great union of the Babylonian states and the supremacy
of the city of Babylon itself was achieved not by Babylonians but by
foreigners who entered Babylonia from its western (or southwestern)
side. The dynasty of which Hammurabi is the chief representative comes
to an end _c._ 2100, and is followed by another known as Shish-Kha,[22]
whose rulers likewise appear to be foreigners; and when this dynasty
finally disappears after a rule of almost four centuries, Babylonia is
once more conquered by a people coming from the northern parts of Elam
and who are known as the Cassites.[23] These Cassites, of whose origin,
character, and language but little is known as yet, ruled over Babylonia
for a period of no less than 576 years; but adapting themselves to the
customs and religion of the country, their presence did not interfere
with the normal progress of culture in the Euphrates Valley. We may
therefore embrace the period of Hammurabi and his successors, down
through the rule of the Cassite kings, under one head. It is a period
marked by the steady growth of culture, manifesting itself in the
erection of temples, in the construction of canals, and in the expansion
of commerce. Active relationships were maintained between Babylonia and
distant Egypt.
This movement did not suffer an interruption through the invasion of the
Cassites. Though Nippur, rather than Babylon, appears to have been the
favorite city of the dynasty, the course of civilization flows on
uninterruptedly, and it is not until the growing complications between
Babylonia and Assyria, due to the steady encroachment on the part of the
latter, that decided changes begin to take place.
About 1500 B.C. the first traces of relationship between Babylonia and
the northern Mesopotamian power, Assyria, appear. These relations were
at first of a friendly character, but it is not long before the growing
strength of Assyria becomes a serious menace to Babylonia. In the middle
of the thirteenth century, Assyrian arms advance upon the city of
Babylon. For some decades, Babylon remains in subjection to Assyria, and
although she regains her independence once more, and even a fair measure
of her former glory, the power of the Cassites is broken. Internal
dissensions add to the difficulties of the situation and lead to the
overthrow of the Cassites (1151 B.C.). Native Babylonians once more
occupy the throne, who, although able to check the danger still
threatening from Elam, cannot resist the strong arms of Assyria. At the
close of the twelfth century Tiglathpileser I. secures a firm hold upon
Babylonia, which now sinks to the position of a dependency upon the
Assyrian kings.
V.
In contrast to Babylonia, which is from the start stamped as a
civilizing power, Assyria, from its rise till its fall, is essentially a
military empire, seeking the fulfillment of its mission in the
enlargement of power and in incessant warfare. Its history may be traced
back to about 1800 B.C., when its rulers, with their seat in the ancient
city of Ashur, first begin to make their presence felt. The extension of
their power proceeds, as in Babylonia, from the growing importance of
the central city, and soon embraces all of Assyria proper. They pass on
into the mountain regions to the east, and advancing to the west, they
encounter the vigorous forces of Egypt, whose Asiatic campaigns begin
about the same time as the rise of Assyria. The Egyptians, abetted by
the Hittites--the possessors of the strongholds on the Orontes--
successfully check the growth of Assyria on this side, at least for a
period of several centuries. In the meanwhile, the Assyrian king gathers
strength enough to make an attack upon Babylonia.
The conflict, once begun, continues, as has been indicated, with varying
fortunes. Occasional breathing spells are brought about by a temporary
agreement of peace between the two empires, until at the end of the
twelfth century, Assyria, under Tiglathpileser I., secures control over
the Babylonian empire. Her kings add to their long list of titles that
of 'ruler of Babylonia.' They either take the government of the south
into their hands or exercise the privilege of appointing a governor of
their choice to regulate the affairs of the Euphrates Valley. From this
time on, the history of Babylonia and Assyria may be viewed under a
single aspect. The third period of Babylonian history--the second of
Assyrian history--thus begins about 1100 B.C., and continues till the
fall of Assyria in the year 606 B.C. These five centuries represent the
most glorious epoch of the united Mesopotamian empire. During this time,
Assyria rises to the height of an all-embracing power. With far greater
success than Egypt, she securely established her sovereignty over the
lands bordering on the Mediterranean. After severe struggles, the
Hittites are overcome, the names of their strongholds on the Orontes
changed, in order to emphasize their complete possession by the
Assyrians, and the principalities of Northern Syria become tributary to
Assyria. Phoenicia and the kingdom of Israel are conquered, while the
southern kingdom of Judah purchases a mere shadow of independence by
complete submission to the conditions imposed by the great and
irresistible monarchy. Far to the northeast Assyria extends her sway,
while Babylonia, though occasionally aroused to a resistance of the
tyrannical bonds laid upon her, only to be still further weakened,
retains a distinctive existence chiefly in name. The culture of the
south is the heritage bequeathed by old Babylonia to the north.
Babylonian temples become the models for Assyrian architecture. The
literary treasures in the archives of the sacred cities of the south are
copied by the scribes of the Assyrian kings, and placed in the palaces
of the latter. Meanwhile, the capital of Assyria moves towards the
north. Ashur gives way under the glorious reign of Ashurnasirbal to
Calah, which becomes the capitol in the year 880 B.C.; and Calah, in
turn, yields to Nineveh, which becomes, from the time of Tiglathpileser
II., in the middle of the eighth century, the center of the great
kingdom. Under Ashurbanabal, who rules from 668 to 626 B.C., the climax
of Assyrian power is reached. He carries his arms to the banks of the
Nile, and succeeds in realizing the dreams of his ancestors of a direct
control over the affairs of Egypt. A patron of science and literature,
as so many great conquerors, Ashurbanabal succeeds in making Nineveh a
literary as well as a military center.
A vast collection of the cuneiform literature of Babylonia is gathered
by him for the benefit of his subjects, as he is at constant pains to
tell us. The city is further embellished with magnificent structures,
and on every side he establishes his sovereignty with such force, that
the might of Assyria appears invincible. The fatal blow, dealt with a
suddenness that remains a mystery, came from an unexpected quarter. A
great movement of wild northern hordes, rather vaguely known as the
Cimmerians and Scythians, and advancing towards the south, set in
shortly after the death of Ashurbanabal, and created great political
disturbances. The vast number of these hordes, their muscular strength,
and their unrestrained cruelty, made them a foe which Assyria found as
hard to withstand, as Rome the approach of the Vandals and Goths. The
sources for our knowledge of the last days of the Assyrian empire are
not sufficient to enable us to grasp the details, but it is certain that
the successful attempt of the Babylonians to throw off the Assyrian yoke
almost immediately after Ashurbanabal's death, was a symptom of the
ravages which the hordes made in reducing the vitality of the Assyrian
empire. Her foes gained fresh courage from the success that crowned the
revolt of Babylonia. The Medes, a formidable nation to the east of
Assyria, and which had often crossed arms with the Assyrians, entered
into combination with Babylonia, and the two making several united
assaults upon Nineveh, under the leadership of Kyaxares, at last
succeeded in effecting an entrance. The city was captured and burned to
the ground. With the fall of Assyria, a feeling of relief passed over
the entire eastern world. A great danger, threatening to extinguish the
independence of all of the then known nations of the globe, was averted.
The Hebrew prophets living at the time of this downfall, voice the
general rejoicing that ensued when they declared, that even the cedars
of Lebanon leaped for joy. The province of Assyria proper, fell into the
hands of the Medes, but Babylonia, with her independence established on
a firm footing, was the real heir of Assyria's spirit. Her most glorious
monarch, Nebuchadnezzar II. (604-561 B.C.), seems to have dreamed of
gaining for Babylon the position, once held by Nineveh, of mistress of
the world. Taking Ashurbanabal as his model, he carried his arms to the
west, subdued the kingdom of Judah, and, passing on to Egypt, strove to
secure for Babylon, the supremacy exercised there for a short time by
Assyrian monarchs. In addition to his military campaigns, however, he
also appears in the light of a great builder, enlarging and beautifying
the temples of Babylonia, erecting new ones in the various cities of his
realm, strengthening the walls of Babylon, adorning the capital with
embankment works and other improvements, that gave it a permanent place
in the traditions of the ancient world as one of the seven wonders of
the universe.
The glory of this second Babylonian empire was of short duration. Its
vaulting ambition appears to have overleaped itself. Realizing for a
time the Assyrian ideal of a world monarchy, the fall was as sudden as
its rise was unexpected. Internal dissensions gave the first indication
of the hollowness of the state. Nebuchadnezzar's son was murdered in 560
B.C., within two years after reaching the throne, by his own
brother-in-law, Neriglissar; and the latter dying after a reign of only
four years, his infant child was put out of the way and Nabonnedos, a
high officer of the state, but without royal prerogative, mounted the
throne. In the year 550 news reached Babylon that Cyrus, the king of
Anzan, had dealt a fatal blow to the Median empire, capturing its king,
Astyages, and joining Media to his own district. He founded what was
afterwards known as the Persian empire.
The overthrow of the Medes gave Cyrus control over Assyria, and it was
to be expected that his gaze should be turned in the direction of
Babylonia. Nabonnedos recognized the danger, but all his efforts to
strengthen the powers of resistance to the Persian arms were of no
avail. Civil disturbances divided the Babylonians. The cohesion between
the various districts was loosened, and within the city of Babylon
itself, a party arose antagonistic to Nabonnedos, who in their
short-sightedness hailed the advance of Cyrus. Under these
circumstances, Babylon fell an easy prey to the Persian conqueror. In
the autumn of the year 539 Cyrus entered the city in triumph, and was
received with such manifestations of joy by the populace, as to make one
almost forget that with his entrance, the end of a great empire had
come. Politically and religiously, the history of Babylonia and Assyria
terminates with the advent of Cyrus; and this despite the fact that it
was his policy to leave the state of affairs, including religious
observances, as far as possible, undisturbed. A new spirit had, however,
come into the land with him. The official religion of the state was that
practiced by Cyrus and his predecessors in their native land. The
essential doctrines of the religion, commonly known as Mazdeism or
Zoroastrianism, presented a sharp contrast to the beliefs that still
were current in Babylonia, and it was inevitable that with the influx of
new ideas, the further development of Babylonian worship was cut short.
The respect paid by Cyrus to the Babylonian gods was a mere matter of
policy. Still, the religious rites continued to be practiced as of old
in Babylonia and Assyria for a long time, and when the religion finally
disappeared, under the subsequent conquests of the Greeks, Romans, and
Arabs, it left its traces in the popular superstitions and in the
ineradicable traditions that survived. But so far as the _history_ of
this religion is concerned, it comes to an end with the downfall of the
second Babylonian empire.
* * * * *
The period, then, to be covered by a treatment of the religion of the
Babylonians and Assyrians extends over the long interval between about
4000 B.C. and the middle of the sixth century. The development of this
religion follows closely the course of civilization and of history in
the territory under consideration. The twofold division, accordingly,
into Babylonia and Assyria, is the one that suggests itself also for the
religion. The beginning, as is evident from the historical sketch given,
must be made with Babylonia. It will be seen that, while the rites there
and in Assyria are much the same, the characters of the gods as they
developed in the south were quite different from those of the north;
and, again, it was inevitable that the Assyrian influence manifest in
the second Babylonian empire should give to the religion of the south at
this time, some aspects which were absent during the days of the old
Babylonian empire. In Babylonia, again, the political changes form the
basis for the transformation to be observed in the position occupied by
the deities at different periods; and the same general remark applies to
the deities peculiar to Assyria, who must be studied in connection with
the course pursued by the Assyrian empire.
The division of the subject which thus forces itself upon us is twofold,
(1) geographical, and (2) historical.
It will be necessary to treat first of the beliefs and pantheon
developed during the first two periods of Babylonian history, down to
the practical conquest of Babylonia by Assyria. Then, turning to
Assyria, the traits of the pantheon peculiar to Upper Mesopotamia will
be set forth. In the third place, the history of the religion will be
traced in Babylonia during the union of the Babylonian-Assyrian empire;
and, lastly, the new phases of that religion which appeared in the days
of the second Babylonian empire. Turning after this to other aspects of
the religion, it will be found that the religious rites were only to a
small degree influenced by political changes, while the literature and
religious art are almost exclusively products of Babylonia. In treating
of these subjects, accordingly, no geographical divisions are called
for, in setting forth their chief features.
The general estimate to be given at the close of the volume will furnish
an opportunity of making a comparison between the Babylonian-Assyrian
religion and other religions of the ancient world, with a view to
determining what foreign influences may be detected in it, as well as
ascertaining the influence it exerted upon others.
FOOTNOTES:
[16] I may be permitted to refer to a publication by Dr. Brinton and
myself, _The Cradle of the Semites_ (Philadelphia, 1889), in which the
various views as to this home are set forth.
[17] It has been suggested that since the statues of Telloh are those of
the priest-kings, only the priestly classes shaved their hair off.
[18] See an interesting discussion of the question by Professor Hommel,
"Arabia according to the Latest Discoveries and Researches."--_Sunday
School Times_, 1895, nos. 41 and 43.
[19] Also known as Shirpurla which Jensen (_Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, 5) thinks
was the later name.
[20] See Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 16-18. Naram-Sin
signifies 'beloved of the god Sin' (the moon-god); Shargani-shar-ali--
'the legitimate king, king of the city.' The excavations of the
University of Pennsylvania have cast new light upon this most ancient
period of Babylonian history. It is now known that the temple of Bel at
Nippur antedates the reign of Naram-Sin, and in the further publications
of the University, we may look for material which will enable us to pass
beyond the period of Sargon.
[21] _Sunday School Times_, 1895, no. 41.
[22] For various views regarding the name and character of this dynasty
see Winckler, _Geschichte_, pp. 67, 68, 328; Hilprecht, _Assyriaca_, pp.
25-28, 102, 103; Winckler, _Altorientalische Forschungen_, I. 275-277,
and Rogers, _Outlines_, 32, note.
[23] See Delitzsch, _Die Sprache der Kossaer_.